Posted on 06/21/2004 9:06:30 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
As America moves closer to embracing same-sex “marriage,” one can almost picture people in the wedding industry rubbing their hands in delight. After all, if we legalize gay “marriage,” we’ll have more weddings than ever, right?
Wrong. We will end up having fewer marriages, not more. Just ask the citizens of Holland, where marriage is going the way of typewriters and buggy whips.
In the Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, points out that in recent decades—a time when parental cohabitation was sweeping across Northern Europe—the Dutch clung to the last, ragged remains of their religious traditions. Yes, they engaged in cohabitation—but when Dutch couples had children, they usually got married.
Not anymore. During the mid-1990s, the rate of out-of-wedlock births began to shoot up. By 2003, the rate of increase nearly doubled to 31 percent of all Dutch births.
What accounts for this phenomenon? Gay “marriage.” These were the years, Kurtz notes, “when the debate over the legal recognition of gay relationships came to the fore in the Netherlands.” The debate came to an end when Holland legalized full same-sex “marriage” in the year 2000.
The conjunction of these two social phenomena, says Kurtz, is no coincidence. During Holland’s decade-long drive to legalize same-sex “marriage,” gay advocates openly scorned the idea that marriage ought to be defined by the possibility of childbearing. Love between two partners—any two partners—was the real basis of marriage. Thus, as one gay “marriage” advocate told the Dutch Parliament, “there is absolutely no reason, objectively, to distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual love.” Dutch leaders bought this argument. Marriage would be reduced to—as Kurtz put it—“just one choice on a menu of relationship options.” In marriage, as with cheeseburgers, you could have it your way.
Then a funny thing happened on the road to redefining marriage: Dutch people simply stopped getting married—even when they had children. This really ought to come as no surprise. After all, Kurtz writes, “Spend a decade telling people that marriage is not about parenthood, and they just might begin to believe you. Make relationship equality a rallying cry, and people might decide that all forms of relationships are equal.”
The ease with which the Dutch jettisoned marriage happened in large part because the Dutch had already abandoned their Judeo-Christian heritage. The few religious voices raised in defense of traditional marriage were drowned out. And as a result Holland is now going the way of Scandinavia—where acceptance of gay “marriage” has led to the continued deterioration of marriage.
What’s happening in the Netherlands gives us clear evidence of what gay “marriage” does: People stop getting married, and children suffer. Let this serve as a warning to Americans. Marriage between one man and one woman must be protected and strengthened. If it isn’t, then American families—already deeply damaged by divorce and illegitimacy—will be destroyed.
Men give love in exchange for sex.
Women give sex in exchange for love.
The Dutch are scum with legalised drugs, gayy "marriages", abortions (and an Abortion ship trying to murder babies all over the world), euthanasia. If you ever get a chance to go to Amsterdam, don't -- it's a dirty scuzzy place and it's main square, called the Damm square lives up to its name
There was an article that said that 1/3rd of all dogs in Sweden are abused.
Well said.
Yeah, those scum. I'll bet that the whole Dutch guvmint is rife with Southern Baptists. ;-)
If your wrists don't hurt too much from throwing that elephant, perhaps you'd like to back that up?
Ping.
I didn't put any words in your mouth, you did. Here's a tip: The next time you post about what somebody else might do, don't describe their situation in the first person without any "this isn't me" disclaimer. That way you won't have to whine about it later.
My statement is that pointing to Gay Marriage and saying 'That is the cause' is pre-mature. Other social structures have changed, for example pre-maritial sex is now socially acceptable, where it was much less accepted 40 years ago.
Yes, your point was clear. It was also clearly refuted. As I said, the author wasn't comparing the Holland of 40 years ago with the Holland of today, he was comparing Dutch people who shacked up prior to gay marriage to Dutch people who shacked up after gay marriage.
Now for the personal attacks section, please grow up.
Here's what I posted about your first-person example. Find the ad hominem in it for me, would you please?
Why would any sane woman risk having sex (especially on a regular basis) with a man who has expressed the views you have? If she ends up pregnant, you "just move on with your life" and she ends up holding the bag? Not even paying child support?
Kudos on your post, and your attitude toward marriage.
Very nice! Good points.
If you're right, then I'm the one guy out of ten.
Now, don't get me wrong, Rambette is a fine specimen of womanhood and I would have married her if either of us wanted kids, but one of the reasons I was looking for a wife in the first place was to become a father.
Agreed.
Which leads us to...
Silverback's Law of Marriage and Reproduction:
If one partner wants a large gaggle of children and the other wants a small number, they will either compromise or one will change their mind. If one partner wants any number and the other wants zero, they are almost certainly doomed from the start and should never, ever, get married.
either=neither
Spot on.
Oh, sorry, but it sure sounded like you were speaking from first-hand experience. My apologies!
When faith leaves, you have a lot of folks with no moral compasses, meaning more selfish behavior and less committment behavior. Those "lukewarm" folks I'm guessing are the more selfish type, particularly if the other person involved considers themselves to be in a "love" relationship.
When "stuff" becomes more important than the relationship itself, that's selfish behavior, and the relationship is doomed, no matter what the feelings.
I think the more liberal the country becomes, the more selfish everyone gets, and its impact on marriage is horrible.
"Gay" marriage is just an addition to the general moral decline. I think it's a good indication of how messed up people are.
That's a fairly straightforward point to argue.
First off, neither I, nor anyone I know would argue against paying for child support. The child needs to be provided for financially. No arguement there at all. This is the responsibility of the father. However, there are some men who do not want to be the 'father'. They do not want the responsiblity, and no one has the right to force them to assume this. That would be cruel to the father, as well as the child.
That said, let's look into the decision tree, shall we?
Who decides to have sex? Assume mutual decision (lest it be called rape).
If pregnancy occurs, who decides if the pregnancy will be terminated? The woman has 100% control, the man can neither approve, or prevent this.
Child is delivered full term, the choice is now 'adoption' (man is off the financial hook) or the woman may chose to keep the child. At this point in time, the woman has 100% control of the financial obligations of the father. She may either give the child up, or she may chose to raise it herself. The man has NO control over this decision. If he doesn't want to be involved in the child's life (this is his decision), his choice is to adopt the child himself (and pay 100% of the child rearing costs) or see if the woman wants to raise the child.
Assume the woman decides to raise the child, she may live anywhere she likes, and deny visitation (and the courts are FULL of cases just like this). She may decide to raise the child for 17 yrs. and 363 days by herself; then hit the father for 18 years of back-child support (again, this has happened before).
I'm certain you are well aware of how men fare in custody cases? So, do we need to discuss those?
The woman gets to make nearly every decision, with regard to if, when, how and where the child will be raised. The man get's no input whatsoever. He's just a paycheck.
Now, couple this set of facts with the already unfair divorce laws; and ask youself again why many men are chosing never to marry.
When you consider the ramifications inherent in marriage and children; you can understand why men are chosing to get a vasectomy while in their 20's, and delay marrying. Many men who have been married, are eagerly coaching younger men on how to avoid the pratfalls they have suffered. I know a few people who are paying ~$500/month for a child, and they do not even know where the child is living. All they know is that the child support payment is deducted from their bank account each month. Thier situation is not at all uncommon.
The homosexual marriage advocates' true objective has never been the legalization homosexual marriage, but rather the elimination of heterosexual marriage.
Good for you we need more real men like you. I hope your wife is nice to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.